The defendant was seen driving recklessly by a civilian witness, and she was stopped by police. She failed three field sobriety tests, and blood testing detected the presence of valium and Nordiazapam in her blood. She was convicted and appealed. In a published opinion, the Superior Court vacated Griffith's conviction, and created a new rule that expert testimony was a per se requirement to sustain a conviction for DUI where the defendant drives under the influence of prescription medication. The Commonwealth petitioned for allowance of appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which was granted.
The Supreme Court rejected the Superior Court's per se test as without support in the statute. Instead, the Court held that the "need for expert testimony in a subsection 3802(d)(2) prosecution must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into account not just the specific drug at issue, prescription or otherwise, but also the nature and overall strength of the Commonwealth’s evidence."
The Supreme Court rejected the Superior Court's per se test as without support in the statute. Instead, the Court held that the "need for expert testimony in a subsection 3802(d)(2) prosecution must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into account not just the specific drug at issue, prescription or otherwise, but also the nature and overall strength of the Commonwealth’s evidence."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Leave a comment